Thursday, 12 April 2007

Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans V European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?

Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; it’s opponents paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.

In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.

But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous attempts to overthrow the West militarily, they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised, rapidly expanding, and as their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate, as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.

And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.

In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority of 5% such as Thailand, a country sliding inexorably toward civil war. Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity since 9/11.

Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many as such, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer all non-believers.

To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars in which Imams - trained or imported from Saudi Arabia - preach extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK, which exposed Imams in their call for Holy War against the West, which can be seen here on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. He also prophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.

The concept of Sharia law is not fully understood by the majority of Europeans. Under it they could be killed if they refused to convert to Islam or accept second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. 40% of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.

What percentage of that 40% are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that young males with a favourable view of Sharia constitute a higher figure than the 40% suggests.

So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination, for which they are happy, in countries such as Sudan, to perpetrate genocide. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence such as 9/11, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami, the rape of European women as described by Fjordman, the civil unrest in France, where police claim they are in the midst of a civil war, and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.

Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression. In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it, it requires an article on it’s own, and a lengthy article at that. (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has more than it’s fair share of homosexuals and feminists.)

There are many, many more examples of Islamic aggression and European appeasement, but the general thrust is one of overwhelming submission on our part. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all out civil war?

Essentially, there are five options. The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after. This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers who agree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.

The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.

The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all it’s Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’Or’s book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.

Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons: “However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.” Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.

The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.

The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.

As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five, to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently only believe in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.

The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare, rather, it simply makes it easier for those who wish to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who place fantasy over reality, could believe it.

Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will be nerve jangling and will be accompanied by ever-stricter government controls to keep societal order.

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in either France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many, and we will retaliate. They will then retaliate, the police will be unable to cope, the army will be drafted in but will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked, civilians will be massacred and so a civil war will start.

When the violence starts for real, each and every person, be they moderate or extremist will be forced to take sides, and moderate Muslims will of course take the sides of the extremists. It will be a war entirely different to Europe’s previous wars, which were fought by standing armies along clearly delineated lines. Next time, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will fight it.

I say initially, because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, they will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line, behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group. And then, enter America, as always, Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver weaponry to the Europeans against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.

Such is the future brought about by multiculteralist liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with a knowledge of history can see the inevitable coming war. Quite how large it becomes is of course beyond any prediction, but rather than being merely a European war, it could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one they have no hope of winning.

Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculteralist, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring it about. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?

The liberal response to an article such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: Rather than leave sneering one line comments, write a 1,000 word article as to why the scenario outlined above is not inevitable, incorporating reality rather than ideology. I believe it is utterly inevitable, and a tragedy for the West, for Islam, for all of mankind. Please refute it. I really would like it not to be the case.

Tuesday, 10 April 2007

If I were to tell you that within twenty years, Europe could find itself engaged in a civil war so bloody it made WWII look like a bun fight, you might logically consider me a candidate for the men in white coats. You would be wrong however. Based on the demographic evidence collated for this article, such a scenario looks not merely possible, but inevitable. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1.

There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.

Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.

In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen HERE (John, can you link to the excel sheet somehow?) and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).

In addition, the Muslim population, with it’s birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles it’s next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of it’s parents.

This loss of almost 1/3 of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.

Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled Europeans fleeing Eurabia which should be read in conjunction with this article.

If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a European V Islamic civil war are already in place, save Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic make up that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.

I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death Of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.

This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.

If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.

Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.

Suppose though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs let alone accountants.

Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.

Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war - based on today’s 18:1 - would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the figures rounded up or down:

This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant supply of workers to dependants, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.

As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.

In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 million Turkish males of fighting age. They willprobably be part of the European Union well before then, but if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:

Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.

And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes thinks an exodus of the bourgeoisie a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.

Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.

The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.

Copyright: Paul Weston 2007

Note 1: The US Census population pyramids suggest countries with high birth rates - i.e. Muslim - are made up of 23% male 0-19 year olds, and 15% male 20-39 year olds. These are the percentages used for this article in the regrettable absence of census figures.

Note 2: I have taken the immigration rate as being 70% Islamic, and used 15% of this figure to arrive at the number of males aged 20-40.

Note 3: I am neither a demographer nor mathematician. Due to this, there are slight inconsistencies in the excel spreadsheet accompanying this article, although they do not affect the overall figures. One example is my use of 20-40 year olds rather than 18-40 year olds, purely as an ease of projection. Should there be any professional demographers reading this, perhaps they could build a spreadsheet acceptable to scholars. These figures need to be in the public domain and discussed at the highest level.

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism - with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

If we are to genuinely hold an intense debate on multiculturalism, then it must be warts and all. Hiding behind a wall of well-intentioned words is of little use when our lives are under threat every time we board a bus or train. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, yet even now these negatives are never allowed to see the light of day. These criticisms are real words about real effects and as such transgress the idealistic and unrealistic worldview held by our liberal elites.

The first issue to look at is what does multiculturalism actually mean? It is a word of such obtuse generalisation that one has to assume it is merely camouflage for an underlying agenda. It is also a word that was unknown a few decades ago, only coming to prominence with the simultaneous rise to political power of sections of the liberally inclined baby boom generation.

The educational and media led definition of multiculturalism is that all races and cultures are equal, that immigration enriches us culturally and economically and given an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect differing races and religions will benefit one another when intermingled within the same territory. This is the prevailing and generally accepted definition across the West.

However, this is not the way it is taught in our schools, nor disseminated by our media. Indigenous children are indoctrinated into the belief that Western civilisation is guilty of historical and present day inequality and oppression, in short, brainwashed into shame of their race and culture. Conversely, ethnic children are both encouraged to take pride in their own race and culture and to feel victimised by the majority white society they live amongst. This version of multiculturalism is force fed with a fervour almost religious in its intensity, despite it being a recipe for balkanisation and resentment rather than assimilation.

Multiculturalism in not some type of fixed entity, it is constantly evolving and means different things to different people. For example, to the 1960’s cultural revolutionaries and their ideological progeny, multiculturalism is simply a tool with which to bash Western civilisation. The white working class had become too affluent to be used as political pawns, ergo, import a new, “oppressed” revolutionary power base. It is not coincidental that multiculturalisms white activists are politically of the hard left and that they deliberately divide Western countries along imported racial and religious fault lines.

To the naive white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquillity. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.

To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.

When one race invades the homeland of another race it does so in order to acquire territory and to impose it’s own culture. Conversely, the invaded group resists in order to preserve his race, his territory and his culture, not simply because he is a racist and dislikes the skin colour of the invader. Or at least that is historically how things were. The people of the West today are ceding territory, tradition and culture and do so in the face of evolutionary imminent minority status, whilst the incomer makes no pretence of his intentions in his avowal of Islamic mono-cultural superiority. To resist is to be called a racist, yet no one was called a racist in 1939 when we went to war with a different race and culture that wished to enter our homeland, overthrow our elected government, murder the Jews and homosexuals and consign our remaining citizens to second class status.

Multiculturalism, when viewed through the conservative prism of racial reality rather than the liberal prism of a multiracial and multi-religious utopia can draw only one logical conclusion, to whit, Western countries are in the process of unopposed invasion and are submitting in their entirety. Multiculturalism as practiced in the West today is an ideology of territorial and political aggression by the anti-Western invader and the submissive ideology of state sanctioned white European appeasement.

Democratic societies require balance if they are to remain democratic. Multicultural societies have drawbacks - as listed below – and if we are not to slowly slide into dictatorship or civil war then the following negative points must somehow be balanced by the positives of multi-racial, multi-religious societies.

Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip feed propaganda) still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.

Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.

White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the worlds population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.

Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Multi-religious countries have a history of internal violence, the outcomes of which tend toward a reversion to mono-religion after bloody civil wars. When India was partitioned in 1947 seven million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan whilst a similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in a religious majority. Whilst partition stopped a full-scale civil war some half a million people were killed. Europe has had its Protestant/Catholic religious wars so to introduce into its peaceful midst the fanatical religion of Islam is an act of breathtaking irresponsibility.

Multicultural societies have present day tribal conflict. The UN currently has sixty thousand peacekeepers engaged in fifteen peace missions around the world. These are not cross border wars; they are internal, inter-tribal/religious conflicts. Only Western, liberal minded elites, be they Labour or Republican, could suppose that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would all kiss and make up. The chaos in Iraq is multiculturalism in the form of religious tribalism - without the benefit of a ruthless dictator to hold it together - exposed in its stark reality.

The white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. They are in the main, middle class suburban or rural dwellers of majority white enclaves. One peculiarity of white liberals is that whilst they embrace the ethnic colonisation of the West they are repulsed by the history of white colonisation in the East, thereby showing that their political views have less to do with colonisation per se and more to do with a hatred of Western civilisation. Trying to find a working class man in a gritty and diverse part of town who supports this peculiar ideology is akin to discovering a conservative at the BBC or a democrat in church. Put simply, Western liberals, feminists and homosexuals, who for reasons known only to themselves support multiculturalism, do not choose to live in Riyadh yet hold up Islamic culture as equally valid.

The non-white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. The Middle East is monocultural, as is Pakistan and India. The idea that Europeans in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for practicing Christianity whilst Saudi money is financing thousands of radical mosques throughout Europe is perhaps the best example of multiculturalism’s rank hypocrisy.

Multiculturalisms belief that all cultures and races are equal is simply not true. Their evolutionary capacity for equality may well be so, but when the Romans left Britain the indigenous Brits forgot all about aqueducts, under floor heating and democracy and immediately sank into the dark ages. If white Europeans became extinct next Friday the entire world would similarly revert to the dark ages. The world flocks to the West, there is no reciprocity as would be the case if we were truly equal.

Multiculturalism breeds resentment. If we are all equal, as it supposes, then the only reason many non-whites fail to become CEO’s of multinational firms is perceived to be a consequence of white oppression rather than an innate lack of ability. Breeding resentment of course was always foremost in the mind of the culture wars liberal.

Multiculturalism brings with it an increase in violent crime committed at a ratio vastly out of proportion to the ethnic numbers. This also leads to an increase in low-level crime, which the police simply have no time to handle as they are too busy writing reports and recommendations in triplicate over the latest gang rape or racial murder.

Multiculturalism promotes dishonesty. Were the true facts of rape, murder and violence honestly reported it is possible that even the docile, TV addicted Brits might rise up. The facts are not reported however; censorship or self-censorship of the press and media lead to a road travelled upon in the last century only by totalitarian states.

Multiculturalism leads to propaganda and brainwashing. It is no coincidence that the majority of our young today display a conformity of politically correct thought diametrically opposed to that of their grandparents. In order to make a suicidally unnatural ideology acceptable it is necessary to resort to the indoctrination of children, so the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of the defeated peoples are hidden from view in the liberal establishment’s educational curriculum. Again, this has more to do with totalitarian dictatorships than democratic states, although having said that, it is very definitely a first whereby the state works to dispossess it’s own ethnic majority.

Multiculturalism leads to greater government controls. In the wake of Islamic terrorism in Britain the government has passed various control and anti-terrorism orders. In the main they have been used against terrorist suspects but they have also been utilised against the indigenous population when the government does not like what it hears or sees. One example out of many is the televised manhandling and detaining of an eighty two year old heckler, Walter Wolfgang, under anti-terrorism laws during the 2005 Labour party conference. Similarly, the EU’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, whilst purportedly seeking to criminalize genuine racism also suggests that criticism of the EU could be termed xenophobic! We no longer have freedom of speech and this type of restriction is liable to intensify as the ethnic numbers and ensuing tensions increase, until eventually control will by necessity be on a par with Tito’s Yugoslavia or Saddam’s Iraq.

Multiculturalism, if history repeats itself, will lead to a probable rather than a possible civil war. There are some three hundred and forty million ageing and demographically declining white Europeans in Western Europe and some twenty million Muslims whose reproductive proclivity will give them, varying from country to country, a numerical advantage amongst the traditional fighting ages of sixteen to thirty year olds within the next twenty to forty years. Mark Steyn in “America Alone” suggests that Islamic youth makes up forty five percent of total French city youth today. If the forty percent of Islamic youth mean what they say with regard to wanting Sharia law and if Western youth has really absorbed the appeasing indoctrination of multiculturalism then the scope for bloodshed and carnage amongst hundreds of millions of peoples is something not even the veterans of WWII can begin to imagine. If Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey became involved the number of European Muslims today amount to approximately one hundred million.

Multiculturalism promotes a brain drain from Western nations. According to the Conservative Monday Club, one in two native Brits would emigrate if financially able to do so. They cited crime, education and overcrowding as the reasons but true to politically correct form never mentioned Islam or multiculturalism - only the consequences thereof. Young, middle class professionals with children are also baling out of Europe in unprecedented droves. As this escalates the tax base will have to rise to support Europe’s welfare states, thereby driving further taxpayers abroad until Europe will eventually consist of an embittered white underclass and a simmering ethnic population, both competing for dwindling resources.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction to the West of tuberculosis, cholera and malaria, diseases previously thought eradicated. In Britain no medical checks are carried out on immigrants.

Multiculturalism has bought the British National Health Service to its knees. The cost of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV sufferers is some twenty five thousand pounds per year and as a great many sub-Saharan Africans have the misfortune to suffer from this virus it is unsurprising that they move heaven and earth to bring themselves and their infected families to Britain to benefit from free medical aid. Disapproving of this may sound inhumane but economic reality leads to a service for it’s own or no service for everybody.

Defenders of multiculturalism point out that the British health service would collapse without immigrant nurses and doctors. This may well be true but to import them from poor countries, which have stumped up the money to train them in order to tend their own populations is an act of extreme illiberalism.

Multiculturalism leads to a lack of cohesion. A successful nation is made from the bottom up. Individuals form families’ thence communities, towns, cities and lastly the Nation State. Cohesive countries tend to be monocultural, acting in the best interests of the group. The West today is being balkanised and tribalised and should we need to come together at some future point to defeat say, a 21st century Hitler, or more pertinently an Islamic France, it is unlikely that our Muslim communities would fight on our side.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction of slavery, euphemistically entitled “people trafficking”. Britain’s massage parlours generate close to a billion pounds per year from the enforced prostitution of five thousand predominately East European and Asian teenaged children smuggled in by Albanian and Turkish gangs.

Multiculturalism is a betrayal of our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died to preserve their countries and cultures. Many ex-servicemen I have spoken to tell me with great sadness that multicultural Britain was not worth their sacrifice or the deaths of their comrades. Indeed it is a double betrayal, young children today may well have to face submission or war in the coming decades.

The Jewish Holocaust was an act of such inhumane savagery that Western Europeans vowed it would never happen again. But multi-racialism/multi-religion is responsible for present day holocausts. The Islamic Janjaweed militias have killed one million non Muslim Sudanese Africans over the last decade. Does one million dead not count as a holocaust?

Multiculturalism betrays the low-income white child. Some schools in the poorer parts of London speak thirty different languages, hardly a place for poor white children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The result is that low-income white children are now at the very bottom of education league tables.

Multiculturalism restricts the freedom of both children and adults. I know many parents who refuse to let their children travel into central London and undertake said journeys themselves only if absolutely necessary. This is hardly surprising. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 claims that British secret services have thwarted five full-scale attacks since the July 2005 tube bombings and are actively tracking two hundred groups consisting of one thousand six hundred people. She admits these are only the ones that they know about and is concerned that one hundred thousand “British” citizens sympathise with terrorist suicide bombers. Well yes, so she should and so should we.

Multiculturalism leads to a reduction of standards in our quota driven institutions. To take one example, entry requirements for the British police now consist of zero academic qualifications whilst minor criminal convictions are overlooked if the applicant is of the right colour.

Multiculturalism is a drain on the taxpayer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of diversity officers, equality officers and race awareness officers, all funded directly by the state.

Multiculturalism claims all faiths are equally valid yet in practice it is distinctly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic. It is thus partially responsible for the cleansing of Christianity from continental Europe and is totally responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism, particularly in France, which Israel now deems unsafe for Jews.

Multiculturalism is totalitarian. It brooks no opposition from its detractors and carries out campaigns against perceived heretics with a viciousness previously unknown in Western politics. The vitriolic campaign waged against the British headmaster Ray Honeyford during the 1980’s is a case in point. That his proposal of Muslim assimilation has now been vindicated is not to suppose he will receive compensation or apology. The irony, if irony is not too weak a word, is that multiculturalism, in its promotion of Islam, seeks to elevate the one single culture and religion with an avowed ambition of mono-cultural global dominance.

Finally, multiculturalism is treason. Not legally I grant you, but technically how can this not be so? If it is indeed the case that the West is undergoing a slow motion, unarmed invasion then any government that both condones the invasion and criminalizes those that oppose it must surely be guilty of treason. When the ancient treason laws were written it never occurred to the original drafters that any country would be foolish enough to open it’s doors to an Islamic Trojan horse, but we in the 21st century West are that foolish, we have opened the doors and the treason laws need urgent redrafting.

In conclusion, although this essay is entitled “Multiculturalism – Merits and Debits” I cannot in all honesty think of any merits important enough to outweigh the negatives above. That mass immigration from the third world is of supposed economic benefit is one, but Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK debunks this proposal, whilst a liking of spicy curry simply doesn’t cut the ideological mustard.

This essay, although slightly revised here, was posted on a British web site earlier this week. The reaction was one of incredulity that anyone could write such racist rubbish. I was accused of being either xenophobic or mentally unhinged. The web site was right of centre with a distinct anti-Islamic ethos, so either too much thinking about Islam and the West has finally done for me, or more worryingly the British have been so utterly brainwashed they can longer see the reality of their imminent demise. Many social commentators on American web sites are of the opinion that Britain is committing suicide. In further light of this article in today’s Daily Mail, I am inclined to agree.

Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive, educated, successful and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of the West in 2007.

Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.

How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.

As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white faced and shaking with genuine anger would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today - Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism.

We see this is their extreme and hysterical reaction to those who disagree with them, their apparent hatred of Western civilisation, of Israel, of free speech, traditional education, our history and the leaders who helped make us what we are, of religion and of America - both internally and externally. And whilst they are busy hating the very society and culture which enables them to parasitically survive and prosper we see their love affair with all the ideologies that threaten our society, manifested in pro third-world immigration, multiculturalism, radical feminism and until very recently, Communism (oh, if only they could have made their economy work) and, of course, Islam.

And here, the first of their varied pathological contradictions is exposed for the sane world to see; how is it possible for them to sympathise with Islam, a political ideology that runs counter to every issue they apparently deem of transcendental importance? One of the pet words of abuse that the Liberal love to smear their opponents with is Nazi yet are they so blind they cannot differentiate between the white Nazis of 1940 that we “right wing” classical liberalists went to war with and the brown Nazis of 2007 so admired by the “left wing” liberals of today?

Just look at the comparisons; Nazism was a racially supremacist, totalitarian, Messianic movement with an avowed aim of global domination; an ambition for which they were happy to use military force. They genuinely believed they were the master race and all others the sub race. They promoted their ideology via overt propaganda in the brainwashing of their children, they wished to eradicate Jews and homosexuals and thought women fit only for childbirth, the kitchen and the bedroom and finally, they thought nothing of killing their critics. Islam is… exactly the same. It is the 21st Century reincarnation of the Nazi Party and as every white European is now the new Jew or a member of the new sub race, so Islam becomes our worst possible sweat soaked nightmare as an enemy. And the Liberal’s new best friend.

Not content with ensuring that a new Nazi party is fostered and encouraged to grow within the West, the Liberal also works to ensure that his own society is traduced and destroyed from within. He does this by accepting the edicts of subversion planted by Soviet Moscow, with whose ideology and global ambitions they were not entirely unsympathetic. It says a great deal about the Liberal that he sympathised with an ideology penned by a man with an unhappy childhood and catastrophic adult life whose bearded scribbling led to a flawed revolution carried out in the wrong country at the wrong time which subsequently reduced the Soviet working man (at the expense of millions of deaths) to queuing for bread in Moscow whilst the capitalist working man was queuing for beer in Ibiza.

When the Communists were forced - purely by geographical necessity - to waylay their tanks used so successfully in the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they turned instead to the use of Western liberals as their fellow travellers/useful idiots to create economic and cultural mayhem within their own countries, as a prelude to the post anarchic emergence of their longed for Communist International. To this end Western liberals attempted to destroy blue-collar industry via Trades Union action and white-collar commerce by the ruining of education through “progressive” educational techniques. In keeping with their Soviet counterparts they sought, and still seek, to abolish religion, morality and via feminism, the family.

They do this, as we well know, by their capture of the media and educational establishments within which they use the same brainwashing techniques geared toward the same ends as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao (see: Thomas Sowell – Inside American Education). The political brainwashing of children is a manifestation found only in totalitarian societies. With past dictators it was a necessity to enable permanent power, in the West today it portends a coming dictatorship, why else would they do it? Although Lenin, the propagandist ancestor of today’s BBC or CNN was the originator in the brainwashing of children, it was difficult, given the technology of the time to systematically brainwash the adults, but the BBC and CNN have simply taken his practice and adapted it to an international, far reaching audience, surpassing even Hitler.

Hitler, whilst adopting the Lenin’s techniques for indoctrinating children, took adult indoctrination to a whole new level, as stated by Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments: Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technological development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought….” What he could have done with twenty-four hour TV does not really beg the question because CNN and the BBC are doing it anyway, subtly perhaps, but this is an even greater method - given time.

Hitler was intent on using such propaganda in order to form the Master Race, Lenin the New Socialist Man, but what exactly does the Liberal of today wish to bring about? It is not, despite his insistence, The One World, Socialist, Multicultural Man, because this is where the Liberal deviates from the slavish following of his ideological ancestors - who at least attempted to advance their own countries - and sets up the indigenous population of his own country as the hate figure to be vilified. Hate figures are always necessary in warfare or dictatorships, be it Oceania, the bourgeoisie or the Jew. The white, male, heterosexual, Judaeo-Christian European now fulfils this model by dint of his imperial past and his supposed present day oppression/exploitation of non-whites, females and homosexuals.

That the lumpen masses are relatively unconcerned is due not merely to their lack of cogent reasoning but to their numerical advantage. Why should they feel threatened by people they seldom see and via media censorship, rarely hear about? But demographics suggest that the white European will become a minority all across the West within the next fifty years, some countries even sooner. This reality, coupled with our acceptance of the type of abuse reserved historically for Hitler’s Jews and Lenin’s middle/upper-classes should cause us grave reservations. What on earth is the Liberal thinking of when he introduces “Anti-Racist” maths into school lessons or “Whiteness Studies” into university lectures. Can he not see where this leads, how can he be so blind?

Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”.

The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none too attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly – the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future International consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about.

It is not conservative policy that has resulted in millions of our children leaving school ill equipped to succeed in our First World economy and it is not conservative policy that brainwashes these children into a blindness to the racial dangers they will face in later years. It is not conservative policy that causes drug addicted lower classes to live in crime and squalor whilst the metropolitan liberal elites indulge themselves with recreational drugs and it is not conservative policy that has bought about the destruction of the family and the serial sexual abuse perpetrated by this months “mummy’s new boyfriend”. It is not conservative policy that confines the elderly to their houses for fear of becoming the victims of violent, moral free children and it is not conservative policy that allows these feral children to have no fear of the police. It is not conservative policy that has turned the West into an outpost of Arabia and it is not conservative policy that threatens the white European with the very real possibility of eradication well before the end of this century. And finally it is not conservative policy that criminalizes any person who dares point out any of the above.

Not only is the Liberal apparently unaware of such destruction, he also appears unaware of where this will lead. This is another pathological contradiction that so assuages his ideology. By any objective analysis the path he has set Western society upon can only end in anarchy and racial based civil war, out of which must arise either an Islamic West or a counterrevolution led at best by a Pinochet, at worst a Hitler. From the cohesion and peace of the 1950’s we are descending into the bitter ideological struggles of the 1930’s Weimar Republic, the reds versus the brown shirts, the liberal left versus the “far” right. Whichever is the winner there can be only one absolute guarantee; the liberal infidel or the liberal traitor will be the first up against the wall. How can they be so blind?

Perhaps the answer to this lies in Tammy Bruce’s book “The Death of Right and Wrong” which ranks as a necessary read in her exposure of the damage caused by liberal ideology. Tammy Bruce was a high-ranking activist in the National Association of Women (NOW) but became so disgusted by their attitudes that she broke ranks and started to write from the compassionate “right”. She believes the driving force of the Liberal to be “Malignant Narcissism”, a mental condition attributable to childhood abuse and trauma inflicted by parents, authority figures or peers.

Bruce quotes psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg, who describes it thus: “This pathological idealisation of the self as an aggressive self clinically is called malignant narcissism. And this is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others’ trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them.”

Tammy Bruce then goes to say in her own words: “The core components of this syndrome are pathological narcissism, paranoid traits and aggression. Self-preservation, self-promotion and maintaining power are all traits that prevail in the malignant narcissist. The people and issues they supposedly serve exist only to be exploited for their own benefit”.

Bruce then concludes with this damning comment: “I have participated at both the local and national levels of NOW; I have spent time with other feminists and gay special-interest groups and their leaders; I have worked in the entertainment industry and all forms of news media; and I have worked with political campaigns for democratic candidates. I have also spent time around universities. I can say with full confidence that what I have seen driving and controlling the actions of the Left Elite in all these venues – culturally, politically and socially – is malignant narcissism. Issues are used and people exploited for the sake of power. Malignant Narcissism is the god of the Left Elite.”

One needs not look far to see examples of this. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Cherie Blair, Jane Fonda, Marx and Engel’s’, Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Greer etc etc. The list of liberals and dysfunctional childhoods is endless. Liberalism and mental dysfunction go hand in hand leading to the reality that is the West today; our dysfunctional elites so consumed with virulent self-loathing that they are happy to preside over the eradication of the society they feel so damaged them. The West has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics have taken control at all the various levels in all the various institutions that shape our future.

So, after fifty years of the ongoing, politically correct, liberal revolution what exactly has the Liberal achieved? That they have partially destroyed our race, culture, society and countries is not in question, but neither is it a result of well-intentioned incompetence. It is success on a massive scale, if you measure success as evil intent. They have caused untold hurt to the poor, the young, the vulnerable and the elderly and as they did this they utilised the propaganda and repression techniques descended directly from the two most evil empires in history, Nazism and Communism.

Their present flirtation with Islam is proof, if further proof is needed, that the appeal of brutal totalitarianism overrides their professed love of feminism and homosexuality, thereby redirecting onto themselves Hitler’s statement with regard to the liquidation of opponents: “The morally squeamish intellectual may be shocked by this kind of thing but the masses are always convinced that right is on the side of the active aggressor.” Perhaps this is why they favour the bellicose invasion of their countries via third world immigration and multicultural propaganda, but what this realistically shows is that they are consumed with such a loathing for the West and indeed themselves that they favour their own ethnic and civilisational demise and are characteristically unmoved that they will take us down with them.

To compound obscenity upon obscenity they deliberately camouflage this wanton, genocidal destruction under the banner of tolerance, diversity and equality. They are worse than the Nazis, they are treacherous Nazis. In answer to the opening question of this essay, they are not balanced sane people and they are not liberals. Their actions speak louder than their mendacious words; they are self-hating malignant narcissists. To call themselves liberal is as duplicitously self-serving as were a genuine Nazi to promulgate the same views he held in 1940 yet call himself a liberal today. Politically correct liberalism IS Nazism coupled with Communism, whilst classical liberalism is the ideology of we right wing opponents. They are insane, or so utterly evil that that in itself is a form of insanity.

We scribblers and readers of the supposed political “right” are not by nature terribly interested in politics. We were never radicals, activists or wannabe revolutionaries. That we exist today is purely a reaction to the Liberal’s attempts to bring down the society in which we live. Without them I would suggest that the vast majority of us would be content to mow our lawns, raise our families, pay taxes, give to charity and support benign political parties. YOU the Liberal have made us what we are today, YOU the Liberal have bought us into existence, just as a peaceful man may be driven to assault a paedophile that molests his child so we exist as a counter to your ongoing damage to our countries and by default our children and future children. Your belief that we will go quietly into the night is only further evidence of your arrogant disconnection from reality or sanity.

But now, with the advent of the Internet we have access to information that validates what we suspected but could not prove, and the means of using this information to spread and facilitate a defence. We’ve rumbled you my liberal friend, you can no longer censor us out of your insane destruction of our countries and our cultures. You have lost your grip on the means of information and if you think that you are the self righteously angry defenders of the oppressed, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You have no idea how oppressed you make us feel, how angry we are, or how many we number. This justifiable anger is directed principally at the malignant narcissist liberal whose intention has always been to destroy, but you, the middle class liberals filled not with hatred but with well-intentioned guilt must understand that you have been duped, your alliance with politically correct liberalism is just as destructive and we have had enough.

You, the Liberal, must understand that the people whose race and culture is being slowly swept away by politically correct liberalism are the very people who built the civilisation you have inherited. If this civilisation were to die we would become a tribal Iraq, Somalia or Yugoslavia. So I implore you, recognise the reality of what is happening, reappraise your idea of liberalism and channel your guilt not into the past but into the future, the guilt you would surely feel - you must surely feel - if you allowed your children and your grandchildren to inherit a third world society, with all that implies, bought about by you - The Liberal.

Imagine the scene. You are sitting on a bus with nineteen fellow adults at 4pm during school term time. Your journey is suddenly interrupted by the noisy arrival of nine teenage products of our utopian/dystopian comprehensive schooling system. They shriek, they swear and they spit. They eat crisps and throw the empty packets to the floor, drink coke and allow the subsequently discarded cans to roll up and down the aisle and between your feet. One of them, a fifteen year old called Wayne turns up his ghetto blaster as a girl, covered in cheap gold jewellery, her hair scraped back, decorative rings adorning various parts of her overweight, multi-pierced anatomy grinds herself into his lap, her lip-sticked mouth a knowing grin, her mascarad eyes aflutter. She is fourteen years old. She knows all about sex; hetero, bi and gay varieties, she learned that at primary school. She goes by the name of Shazza and lost her virginity to Wayne’s brother Dwayne at the age of twelve.

Shazza also knows about abortions, at least she knows they are her right in the event that Wayne, the Epsilon-Semi-Moron she is presently gyrating upon, fail to use the state subsidised condoms handed out in assembly and “Knock Her Up”. Should the wayward Wayne impregnate her, and should she not take up her inalienable right to abort Wayne’s epsilon offspring, she also knows her right to a free council flat as yet another ruined single mum teenager. Shazza, Wayne and their gang all know about these things, and others, such as how evil the British Empire was and how we perpetrated and condoned the evils of slavery. Sadly though, the name Wilberforce will only elicit a vacant, bovine look or a glottal stopped enquiry into which club he plays for.

There are some things however that she does not know. She has no concept of the notions of honour, duty, obligation, deference and civility. She can barely read, spell, add up or multiply in her head. She has no knowledge of her culture, the history of her country, or the history of the institutions that make up and form the community she grew up in. No knowledge of music, art, language or literature. She is the same as the rest of her friends. Today, on-board the number twelve bus they are simply representing their school (motto: Striving For Excellence In The Community). In later years they will represent Britain as her tattooed, alcohol fuelled ambassadors in the clubs and bars of Ibiza, Faliraki and Torremolinos.

They are the sub race; their future lives will consist of eking out a low wage, semi-criminal, state subsidised miserable existence on the periphery of civilisation. They are the death rattle in the dying convulsions of a once proud educational system in a once proud nation.

Obscene as they are, the truly ultimate obscenity is that they are the cold blooded, calculated, consciously planned end product of the liberal/left’s tightly controlled forty-year experiment in Socialist Social Engineering. The British comprehensive inner-city school version of “Give me the boy and I will give you the Wayne” There is of course one other thing that Shazza, Wayne and their friends know. They know that you and the other 19 adults on the bus are frightened of them. They know this because nobody has asked them to turn down the music, stop swearing, or pick up their litter. Would you?

When future historians look back at what was Great Britain, they would do well to note the events of January 15th-22nd 2007.

In a quite extraordinary week, the people of Britain were given several clear indications of where their Country was going, yet these indications were resolutely ignored by the media, the people and the government.

The TV Company, Channel Four, was at the forefront of the news, but for all the wrong reasons. In one programme they bought the nations attention to the sheer bigotry, intolerance and racialism of one section of our community, which was subsequently endlessly debated by the media and deemed worthy of such importance that even Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were sucked into the national breast beating.

This programme was “Big Brother” which for those mercifully unaware is a reality TV show charting the ignorance, pathology and hysteria of social degenerates locked together in a house for the viewing delectation of British people of ALL social backgrounds. Last weeks programmes focussed on the unpleasantness with which an English girl and her friends treated an educated Indian actress. By mimicking her accent and calling her “that Indian” so a continental political rift ensued between Britain and India, smoothed over by the intervention of the aforementioned Blair and Brown. By the end of the week this unedifying spectacle attracted over 9 million viewers.

In another Channel Four programme, “Undercover Mosques” an intrepid journalist with a hidden camera put his life quite literally on the line and bought us news from various Mosques around the country. This news, essentially, was that homosexuals should be killed, paedophilia condoned, women as second-class citizens beaten - as should girls who do not wear the hijab, and lastly, Islam must take over the UK and run it under Sharia law whilst waging Jihad against the infidels.

To rub salt into the wound it transpired that some organisations calling for all the above have been singled out and praised by Tony Blair and the British police as role models for their inter-faith and multicultural activities. Perhaps this is why our politicised police, so keen to prosecute the BNP’s Nick Griffen for accusing Islam of being wicked, have done NOTHING in the face of Islamic calls for murder and conquest.

The viewing figures for this highly important programme were between 1 to 1.5 million people. Given the pre-release advertising and the importance that UK Muslims would put on such a programme it is probable that the vast majority of viewers were not of the race and faith singled out for extinction, but the Muslims themselves. Indigenous Brits may have numbered in the low thousands.

For the first time in this Country the mainstream population was given information previously only available to the tiny minority of people with sufficient interest and intelligence to seek it out via “right-wing” websites or books conspicuous by their absence in Waterstones. I have always thought that if the general population knew what I knew, then the political scene would change. I was sadly mistaken, and not just about the population at large. What should have triggered outrage was ignored by all, including the so-called highbrow newspapers. The Guardian refused to even mention it, whilst the rest of the British media were interested in one thing and one thing only, Big Brother.

“Undercover Mosques” is perhaps the most important programme to have been made in the UK since the invention of the television. It is not the time to detail the transcript here, but it was chilling, terrifying stuff. That the British, in their entirety, ignored it in favour of the appalling and degrading Big Brother, possibly the worst programme ever made is cause for concern, yet could the pathologically suicidal British fall any lower? Well yes, they could.

There were two other stories in the papers this week, both related to the European Union. The first was that the British Parliament would nod through a watered down version of the EU constitution without, as previously stated, a referendum. The second was that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was intending to re-introduce said constitution despite the previous no vote from the Dutch and French. It would appear obvious that the EU Socialist Super State will be inflicted upon us undemocratically. Should we care about this or is Big Brother still uppermost on the warped, adolescent minds at the BBC? Both stories, of course, went unmentioned by the TV media.

Angela Merkel was an East-German Communist. Whilst at the Karl Marx University in Leipzig she was Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda in the Community youth wing. She will find this in keeping with the unelected EU Commissioners where ex Communists make up seven of their twenty seven members, including it’s current President, José Manuel Durão Barroso, once one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party).

Vladimr Bukovsky is on record as stating that Communism never died and is now being inflicted incrementally on the West via the European Union. Do the British know anyting of Bukovsky, or indeed of Communism? No, they do not, the BBC et al refuse to talk to him, after all, as an imprisoned and tortured dissident what does he REALLY know about Communism in comparison to the utopian, idealistic British liberal elites who run our government, media, civil service, police and educational institutions.

Do the British in fact know anything, absolutely anything of any significance at all anymore or is the limit of their thought process set at the bar of Big Brother? We also learned this week that a pass mark of 18% is all that is necessary to gain a C grade exam pass. 50% of our schoolchildren leave school without attaining this in English and Maths, yet 100% of them know everything about TV “celebrities” who can barely speak their native language.

And so we ignore the ideology of one movement who state they wish to eradicate us and another which killed close to 100 million people, whilst we embrace the ideology of celebrity, ignorance and pathology.

From my viewpoint, and I say this with great sadness, we deserve all that we get, which barring a revolution will be one of the following.

An Islamic State.

A Totalitarian Socialist State within the European Union.

A Failed State - after the economic collapse of the EU - caused by bureaucracy, an illiterate and inumerate workforce and unopposable competion from the East.

Revolution - in the event that the British revolt before these scenarios unfold there will be carnage and civil war, possibly even European war. This is the least probable. We sit slack jawed and glassy eyed on our draylon sofas, worshipping at the Altar of television, dressed in polypropolene casual wear, remote in one hand, chips in the other. We have all the Soma we need to insulate ourselves from reality.

So, this week we have been shown our choices and we have chosen the path that 50 years of progressive education, Communist subversion, mass immigration and media brainwashing has pre-chosen for us. Much as we may wish to continue shopping on credit cards, watching reality TV shows and imbibing drugs and alchohol, I am am afraid it is no longer up to us.

This was the week that Britain died from infantilism, liberalism, ignorance and decadence, manifesting themselves in our utter indifference to our survival. We deserve to go, just as future Arnold Toynbees will relate.